Citation Nr: 21022819 Decision Date: 04/19/21 Archive Date: 04/19/21 DOCKET NO. 16-58 957 DATE: April 19, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for service-connected bilateral plantar warts status-post surgical excisions is remanded. Entitlement to a total rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disability (TDIU). REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from April 1990 to April 1993. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2015 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified at an April 2021 Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). The hearing transcript will be associated with record in due course and the undersigned has acted on this appeal under the Board’s One Touch Program. 1. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for service-connected bilateral plantar warts status-post surgical excisions is remanded. 2. Entitlement to TDIU. The Veteran asserts, and testified, that an increased evaluation is warranted for his bilateral plantar warts, in part, due to the effects on his daily activities, such as limiting his walking or standing for any extended period of time. Further, at his hearing, the Veteran raised the issue of entitlement to TDIU. See Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009) (finding that a request for TDIU is not a separate claim for benefits, but rather involves an attempt to obtain an appropriate rating for a disability or disabilities, either as part of the initial adjudication of a claim or, if a disability upon which entitlement to TDIU is based has already been found to be service connected, as part of a claim for increased compensation) The Board finds that remand is warranted for a current VA examination. Although the mere passage of time is not grounds for a new examination, a new examination is appropriate when there is an assertion of an increase in severity since the last examination. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159; Palczewski v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 174, 181 (2007); Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400, 403 (1997). VA must provide a new examination where a veteran claims the disability is worse than when originally rated and the available evidence is too old to adequately evaluate the current severity. Caffrey v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 377, 381 (1995). At the April 2021 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that his bilateral plantar warts have worsened since his last VA examination. The most recent VA examination of record was conducted in 2015. Therefore, a new VA examination is needed to assist in determining the current severity of the Veteran's service-connected bilateral plantar warts. Additionally, as the Veteran has raised a claim of TDIU, remand is necessary for development of that claim and consideration in the first instance by the originating agency. Accordingly, the matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ask the Veteran to complete a TDIU claim form. 2. Obtain the Veteran’s VA treatment records for the period from February 2012 to the Present. 3. Then, schedule the Veteran for examinations by an appropriate clinician regarding the current severity of his service-connected bilateral plantar wars and his bilateral bunions. The examiner(s) should elicit from the Veteran his complete educational, vocational, and employment history and should note his complaints regarding the impact of his bilateral plantar warts and bilateral bunions of the feet on his ability to perform the mental and physical acts required for employment. The examiner(s) should identify all limitations or functional impairment caused solely by his bilateral plantar warts and bilateral bunions of the feet. Provide a full description of the Veteran’s foot disabilities and report all signs and symptoms necessary for evaluating the Veteran’s bilateral plantar wart disability under the rating criteria, to include as a skin condition and as a foot disorder. C.A. SKOW Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board K.M., Counsel The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.